Shankar Bahadur v. The State Of Bihar Through Mr. S. Siddharth The Principal Seceretary Department Of Induistry Govt. O

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1102 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23090 of 2013 ====================================================== Shankar Bahadur Son of Kaji Narayan Resident of Sheikhpura Machhali Gali, P.S. - Shastri Nagar, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Mr. S. Siddharth, the Principal Secretary Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

Mr. S. Siddharth, The Special Secretary-cum-Industrial Development Commissioner, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Mr. S. Siddharth, The Bureau of Public Enterprises (Finance) Department through its Chairman, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority through MS. ANSULI ARYA, Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 5.

MS. ANSULI ARYA, The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Nand Kishor Singh, AC to GP-26 For BIADA Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-09-2017 Considering the fact that the only direction issued in the writ petition was that BIADA should consider the claim and take a decision within three months and the respondents having indicated that because of their financial crunch they are unable to pay arrears and difference to the petitioners, now in this contempt application, no action can be taken. The plea of the petitioner that in cases of other employees by virtue of orders passed in 13360 of

Patna High Court MJC No.1102 of 2016 dt.15-09-2017 2/2 2008 and L.P.A. No.1477 of 2014 the benefit has been granted, cannot be considered in this contempt proceedings. In case there is discrimination in the matter of consideration of the cases of various employees, it gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to agitate the same, but not a case for initiating action for contempt against the respondents. This application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the action as contained in Annexure A before the appropriate competent authority of the Board. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.Jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 19.9.2017 Transmission Date